Subject: How does each standard "fit" together

From: "Shannon J. Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:41:03 -0500

Hello,

Bearing in mind the Guide to Internet Calendaring - I have a question for
the list.

How does all of the various standards that we are currently and are
proposing to use all "fit" together?

That is - with the adoption of BEEB for CAP - how does/does not this impact
iTIP, iMIP, iRIP, iCAL, CAP, MIME or any other standards that are employed
in the proposals of this working group?

I suggest that people's responses to this question be collated and made
available at www.calsch.org among other places.

Shannon

Shannon J. Clark
 JigZaw, Inc
1.800.4.JIGZAW (454.4929)
[email-masked]
www.jigzaw.com

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:02:20 -0600

> in the proposals of this working group?

No impact at all to the objects. No added security issues (I am still
digesting BEEP - so maybe there are some).

BEEP will delay CAP as there MUST BE review time!

> available at www.calsch.org among other places.

That is what the mailing list is for... :-)

---

From: "Shannon J. Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:52:07 -0500

Doug,

Thanks - I guess what I am getting at is that in this sea of abbreviations
and standards it would be very helpful to prepare a short, concise, and
up-to-date explanation of the actual role of each standard in relation to
the others.

For example - it is easy to view iCalendar as "just" a storage/data format -
but it specifically also mentions Methods and a discussion of actions/access
to it, as well as has a discussion about responses and some about access
rights (i.e. "Only the ORGANIZER of an event can make changes to it,
ATTENDEES can only change data about their own status" - this moves
iCalendar out of "just" being a data storage and into a realm of
interaction.

It also assumes certain types of use cases.

Further confusing matters are that iTip and CAP both make reference to
certain impacts onto iCalendar (with CAP being the worst offender in going
ahead and defining changes to iCalendar in the CAP draft).

With the addition of BEEP to the picture - I think a vendor or developer
could be easily forgiven being more a tad confused as to what to read to
create a compliant application.

I.E. if you coded your data structures from RFC2445, then started to look at
the access pieces of your application by reading iTIP and CAP (and iMIP if
mail would be an access means to your system) - you then have to go back
into your data structures and make changes.

The Guide to Internet Calendaring is a very useful document - and helpful -
my thought is that we may want to take the opportunity presented by rolling
BEEP into CAP to look closely at all of the drafts and see if we can
clarify/simplify them to make the implementation process easier.

Yes - these are standards which should be implementation neutral - but as it
currently stands we have over 400 pages of standards (with BEEP getting
close to 500 pages) which are closely interlocked into each other - the
Guide is helpful but is only scratching the surface.

thanks again!

Shannon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Doug Royer
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 5:02 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: How does each standard "fit" together